IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 October 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000559 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he only had about 90 days left on his enlistment and he was going to be sent overseas to Korea. He had previously been to Vietnam and Thailand and had a mental breakdown thinking he would not return home. He tried to get help but no one would help him. He should have never received an under other than honorable discharge; he was a good Soldier and he had a previous honorable discharge. He has been clinically diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 16 October 1967 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 12 March 1976 * 24 pages of Medical Progress Notes from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * three pages of his VA rating decision, with the applicant's name and social security number typed on the top CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The Board requested a copy of the applicant's records from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri; however, his records were not located. The DD Forms 214 he provided are sufficient for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of his case. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 1966. He served in military occupational specialty 57H (Cargo Handler). The highest rank/grade he attained was corporal/E-4. 4. He was honorably discharged on 16 October 1967 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, which occurred the next day. 5. He was discharged from the Army on 12 March 1976. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). His DD Form 214 further shows the following entries in: * Item 6a (Grade, Rate or Rank): PVT * Item 6b (Pay Grade): E-1 * Item 11 (last Duty Assignment and Major Command): Company B, U.S. Army Personnel Confinement Facility, Fort George G. Meade, MD, FORSCOM (U.S. Army Forces Command) * Item 21 (Time Lost, Preceding 2 Years): 656 days * Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal w/ 60 Device * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * 2 overseas service bars * Item 27 (Remarks): * Item 21: 199 days lost under 10 USC 972 from 1 April 1971 thru 16 October 1971 and 1534 days lost subsequent to normal ETS from 17 October 1971 thru 28 December 1975 * Item 19: Vietnam Service from 29 August 1966 to 28 July 1967; Thailand service from 8 September 1968 to 8 August 1969 6. Previous ABCMR records indicate he was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Record of Proceedings shows that the VA had denied his claim for service-connected disability for PTSD. However, neither his separation packet nor any associated DD Forms 458 (Charge Sheet) are available for review. 7. The Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade on 13 September 1978 and the ABCMR denied his request for a discharge upgrade on 16 October 1996. Each Board determined he was properly discharged. 8. The applicant provides: a. Three pages of an extract from his VA rating decision, with his name and social security number typed on top of it. These pages state he was evaluated for prostate cancer and was given a 60 percent disability rating. They also evaluated him for service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) and gave him a 50 percent disability rating. b. Twenty-four pages of VA Progress Notes from 2 October 2012 containing the diagnosis of service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder NOS having been established as directly related to his experiences in Vietnam and are seen to be related to incidents involving fear of hostile military or terrorist activity that he experienced while there. The diagnosis was based on the following: * Occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity * Difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships * Disturbances of motivation and mood * Flattened affect * Impaired abstract thinking * Anxiety * Depressed mood * Forgetting directions * Forgetting name * Forgetting recent events * Mild memory loss * Suspiciousness 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 10. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 11. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 12. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required) (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior (3) Hypervigilance (4) Exaggerated startle response (5) Problems in concentration (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance 13. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 14. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 15. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider (emphasis added)? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 16. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant contends his misconduct resulted from a mental breakdown brought on by the possibility of another overseas assignment. His DD Form 214 shows he had a significant amount of lost time prior to his normal ETS date. He contends he has been diagnosed with PTSD and provides medical documentation from the VA with a diagnosis of service-connected PTSD with a disability rating of 50 percent as a result of his service in Vietnam. 3. He was discharged from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although his records are not available for review, there is a presumption of governmental regularity in his case, in that his discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and his overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time. 4. After his discharge, he was diagnosed by the VA with service-connected PTSD based on numerous stressors he experienced in Vietnam. The Department of Defense now has a thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Consequently, Soldiers who suffered from PTSD, who were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event, warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 5. A review of the provided medical documents shows he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in Vietnam. Based on those experiences, he was diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. It is impossible to know for certain whether his service-connected PTSD played a role in the misconduct that ultimately led to his discharge. However, it is likely his service-connected PTSD was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. 6. His record is void of any misconduct prior to his service in Vietnam as evidenced by his DD Form 214, dated October 1967, wherein his character of service was characterized as honorable; however, the seriousness of his significant amount of lost time should not be completely overlooked. BOARD VOTE: ___X_____ ____X____ ____X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as "Under Honorable Conditions (General)." ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140016204 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000559 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1